June 8, 2011

ADDED: Jon Stewart should just come clean and admit that it has never been the show's agenda to mock people in the order that they are mockable. The calculation has always included how much Stewart & Co. enjoy mocking them. He's a comedian and not a journalist, so it doesn't make sense to call him biased. He's choosing his targets for his reasons, which include political ideology and personal relationships. We understand that. Move on. The effort to be funny about that last night failed. But I hope some viewers have learned from this and become more sophisticated about what the show is. The show influences viewers to think that various people are stupid/evil/corrupt, but it could just as well be making them think that a different set of characters is stupid/evil/corrupt.

Re: the "added" section- this is one thing that has really bugged me about the Daily Show in recent years. It's a funny concept, and Stewart is a great talent- he has truly phenomenal comic timing. But at some point along the way, some forces in the world decided that The Daily Show was More Than Just a Comedy Show, that it was supposed to be some sort of High Social Commentary which should be Taken Seriously.

I assume that it had to do with the news stories that were out a few years ago that more young people get their news from The Daily Show than from any actual news sources- this was supposed to be a bad thing, but Stewart and company decided to spin it into trying to BE that news source- or pretend to be.

If anybody thinks Stewart just put ideology above comedy now - like this is a break in form - then they haven't been paying attention. I can barely watch him, or Colbert, because they're so ideologically driven.

The funniest thing I've seen? Salon.com's Joan Walsh claiming the Weenie made her look stupid. No, sorry Joanie, but you did that all by yourself - and long before Anthony was even on my radar.

Note to conservatives:

Thanks to Andrew Breitbart, Weiner has not only fumbled, but dropped the ball behind the 50-yard line.

Glad to see you admit that Stewart is a Socialist hypocrite who thinks his fellow travelers are untouchable, Althouse. As for funny? All I've ever seen on Stewart are smirks. True comedy is connected to truth; divorce the truth and you've got propaganda in support of ideology. That's where Stewart is, IMO.

Studio audiences of the Daley Show, Colbert and all the late-nite talk shows, "The View," et al., are a subject for study all in themselves. I've always marveled at how they would all hoot and howl over jokes about "stuuupid Bush" when, if one took the size of the studio audience and then applied the per-centage of the nation that had graduated from an Ivy league college (or its equivalent), b) also had an advanced degree from an Ivy league college, then c) were accepted into pilot training (the acceptance rate is only 50% of applicants) and d) successfully completed plt tng (the wash-out rate is roughly 60%) one quickly arrives at the computational result that, on avg, on any given night, EXACTLY NONE of those in the audience had a snow-ball's chance in hell of matching Bush's academic accomplishments--let alone being elected Governor of one of the largest states in the Union and President of the United States on top of it all.

Matt Damon is doing a fund raiser for Weiner. Because Weiner (supposedly) fights for the poor and middle class. What a dumb ass Damon is. How is Weiner more effective for the middle class (or the poor for that matter) than say...Paul Ryan? Weiner fights to gain power. That is his real motivation.

But at some point along the way, some forces in the world decided that The Daily Show was More Than Just a Comedy Show, that it was supposed to be some sort of High Social Commentary which should be Taken Seriously.

Yes. The Daily show was funny when they were running around asking presidential candidates questions from trivial pursuit and not taking themselves so seriously. Somewhere along the way Jon Stewart got this idea that he mattered and had to be serious and influential.

Craig Kilborn never did that. He was just really mean to everyone and it was awesome.

Fred, the best comedy gold on the Joan Walsh video was when America's greatest intellectual, "Special" Ed Shultz, declared that the investigation would reveal whether Weiner's computer had been hacked.

Baldwin may be a horse's ass, but there's two things about looking at a donkey from that angle - 1) they've got really big balls, and 2) if you're not paying attention, you can get kicked REALLY HARD.

Sticking with my original football metaphor - because I can tell how excited Fred is - let's stick to a running game for now (until we know how shaken they are) there's still lot's of time to humiliate them or even, eventually, deciding to go long. But not now. Now's the time for gaining steady yardage. Baby steps. In other words, forget what they're doing:

Crack, I actually hope Alec runs and wins NYC Mayor. Compared to Bloomberg he would be far more entertaining and less contemptable. It is not like any candidate I like will run and win, so let them have the Democratic Party Clown Posse.

Stewart, like Rush, has an ideology and uses satire and irony to make his points, but Stewart pokes fun at the elites while Rush protects them. It is not often that Stewart holds back his satire for anyone, but John Oliver made up for the blood spilled between friends as he lanced the Wiener.

I feel REAL sorry for the next Republican caught with his pants down. It will be a moral imperative to every news organization on the planet to visit upon him every humiliation they believe Weiner has been subjected to, and more.

And, right wing radio is losing listeners. I wouldn't have expected that since there is supposed to be growing anti-BHOism, and an upcoming R POTUS primary. It could be argued that these conditions should make the professional conservatives more popular. But, it's Stewart who is gaining popularity, while folks are turning off the cons.

The next person, left or right, who uses the term "elites" to describe the run-of-the-mill shitheads we all know you're talking about, should be buried up to their shoulders in sand and pummeled about the head and shoulders with a sock full of nickels. Anyone with me? Maybe I should start a petition? Get some drums?

According to the article you linked, the Daily Show is still sucking hind teat to O'Reilly, so it's not really beating Fox after all.

My understanding is that it's very hard to accurately gauge radio listenership, but it wouldn't surprise me if individual conservative shows are losing listeners, while the overall number of people listening to Conservative shows increases. There's a lot more than just Limbaugh these days; some people prefer Levin, some Hannity, some people listen to Hugh Hewitt. And others listen on-line. Seems to me Conservative talk is doing just fine.

I saw that days ago - he's beating FOX in some areas. Gawd, you fools love to spin so much, it's no wonder you sound so dizzy all the time.

And, right wing radio is losing listeners. I wouldn't have expected that since there is supposed to be growing anti-BHOism, and an upcoming R POTUS primary.

Whew, boy, are you delusional. Have you been in a cave for the last few days? Joan Walsh didn't just say she looked stupid, she also said "we" looked stupid. How that gains you more followers is a trick I've never seen in politics. What you're noticing is the the effect of Dems hunkering down - while ignoring the obvious peeling off - which is fine by me:

As long as you don't know what's going on, we can do what we want.

It could be argued that these conditions should make the professional conservatives more popular. But, it's Stewart who is gaining popularity, while folks are turning off the cons.

It "could be" argued, like on the news when they talk about what "may" happen, but isn't - your side is openly declaring they're idiots now - which can only be seen as the truth finally emerging.

When he wants us to take him seriously, he's tries to be a trenchant social critic. When someone starts hammering him for his views or bias, on goes the big red nose and the clown feet, and he's just a comic doing satire, dontcha see?

You do serious political commentary or you do satire and one's art speaks for itself.

Did anyone ever think that Jane Curtin and Dan Akroyd really should have been on the McLaughlin Report?

Josh McHale is much better. Stewie should watch the Soup to see how mockery is done.

McHale is pretty good. Sometimes I think he is getting stale, but so far, he has continued to pull it out.

This is one show that my college aged kid and I can watch and enjoy together. The problem though is that when we do it on Sat. night, my brother will have seen the show the night before, and will give away a lot of the jokes. The fact that McHale can bridge that 40 year gap between us is significant. Stewart never came close - I was ok the first time I saw the show, and it then went down quickly after that.

Have you ever tried to discuss politics or current events with a Stewart fan?

Yes, I'm on Facebook, which I consider an incubator for nonsense.

On the other hand, I got a call from a "radical" the other day, allowing me a moment to gloat - which I didn't take - and he was grateful. I told him to prepare for the onslaught to come, because I know it'll take him a while to cut them loose, but not to be on the wrong side when "the double tap" comes:

I figure, if he's man enough to call, he probably should be spared if possible.

Disagree that comedians (if some can be called that) can't be called biased (Maher, Behar, Griffin, Goldberg). They're shills in the same sense someone like Baba Wawa is, but using a different venue and subterfuge.

PS Salamandyr's point is on the money. There are more choices for the talk radio dollar now. It's no different than pro sports; 50 years ago the only choices used to be Major League Baseball, the NFL, the NBA, and maybe the NHL. Now there's soccer, women's sports, etc.

I respect a liberal who is reasonably knowledgable and can challenge my views. It forces you to sharpen your debating skills.

But discussing politics with a Stewart fan? The problem is they don't know anything. The source of their "news" is a semi-fiction show that has writers whose only purpose is to edit real events in order to make real leaders look like dumbshits.

Matt Damon is doing a fund raiser for Weiner. Because Weiner (supposedly) fights for the poor and middle class.Dear Matt: If you want to help the poor and middle class, do a fund raiser for them, asshole.

The Daily show was funny when they were running around asking presidential candidates questions from trivial pursuitLike... "Why did Paul Revere take that Midnight Ride?"

somewhere a long the way the Daily Show lost the concept that they were mocking the media itself.Yes. Yes.

Have you ever tried to discuss politics or current events with a Stewart fan?Yes. We both get frustrated, and then they go back to Walkerville. (I wish I were being facetious.)

Someone claiming to have "the" pic that Breitbart was holding back is on Twitter. Something to do with Breitbart showing it to the hosts of the Opie and Anthony radio show and someone getting a pic of it. Anyway, I didn't "enlarge" the image, but it looks like what you'd expect sans Fruit of the Looms. Whether it's the real pic will be hashed out by others, I'm sure.This link is obviously NSFW. Spoiler alert: It's an erect penis.

I'm sure you're firm in that conviction but c'mon. I think Stewart is funny; I don't care for Rush. I'm not so naive as to think his audience is the downtrodden and the disenfranchised. they are young, college educated, privileged and upwardly mobile...in short our future elites

"This is the cockpit of the F-102 Delta Dagger’s successor, the F-106 Delta Dart (I could not find an F-102 panel, but they would have been very similar)"

"Now, picture yourself in this chair, at 40,000 feet, traveling at one and a half times the speed of sound. Now imagine that someone has painted the windows white – you are flying on instruments. Now imagine that not only do you have to be able to fly blind, by referencing these instruments, but that you also have to stare into that orange jack-o-lantern of a radar, and interpret a squiggle that will lead you to your target. Now imagine that in addition to not hitting the ground, or your wingman, and watching the squiggle, you also have to turn those switches on the right side panel to activate weapons systems, to overcome enemy countermeasures…without looking outside, as you hurtle through air at -40 degrees F, air so thin that should you lose pressure, you have about 4-6 seconds of consciousness before you black out and die.

I maintain that the instant George W. Bush closed that canopy and took off on the first of his many solo hours in an F-102, it is quite impossible that he was either an idiot or a coward.

To which I humbly add "And I dont care who his daddy was or who may have helped get him into the Texas ANG, theres only one seat in that bird. You can have all the family connections you want, in that plane, theres nobody to help you through the takeoff checklist from the moment you sit down and buckle in."

Lisa:to get us in the mood. first we watch back to back episodes of the daily show and colbertreport…then, to really spice things up we go deface all of my neighbor's sharon angle yardsigns…then when we are really hot we go to the bookstore and cover all of the glen beckbooks with copies of "the audacity of hope!"…i do this about once a week (you can tell i am avery exciting girl!)…or if this i not your thing, we can just get drunk and have mad, passionatesex!

"He will be probably twice as vicious when a Republican does something stupid."

With all due respect, Fred4Pres, I can't wait to see that show.

Republicans will DESERVE to be twice as viciously attacked when they do something this fucking stupid.

But you know what?

There's a real easy way to not ever be on the Jon Stewart show being viciously mocked and that's not to do stupid shit in the first place.

Next Republican caught sending X-rated emails to the fucking underage House pages will deserve everything he gets and I'll be right there to mock them and run them out of town on a rail too.

We have three - count them three - wars going on simultaneously and our economy has fucking cratered. Neither Democrat nor Republican politicians don't have time to fuck around doing stupid shit.

So good on Stewart. Yes, he's going to go lighter on his friend and tougher on Republicans. I'm all for that. Republicans should be held to a higher standard than Democrats because we're fucking better than Democrats.

The Stewart comedy shtick helps me laugh at serious stuff. It provides another point of view. In news of the day one side is saying 2+2= 7 while the other side claims that 2+2=3. Stewart thinks that is funny, as does The Onion News network and SNL. Of course everyone knows that 2+2 is not a relevant question in a world that depends on dollars values which rise and fall with the credit earned by the Obama regime which has shown zero interest faithfulness to its word.

Even the modern court jester is part of the herd and cannot risk expulsion by saying The Wrong Thing.

Stewart is bright but not smart, clever but not intelligent. He knows many facts but no context, and does not know what he doesn't know.

To paraphrase David Mamet, John Stewart is nothing but:" a rat ...trained to pull a lever for a pellet of food. [He] recites some bit of received and unexamined wisdom—“Thomas Jefferson: slave owner, adulterer, pull the lever”—and is rewarded with his pellet: a grade, a degree, and ultimately a lifelong membership in a tribe of people educated to see the world in the same way."

Stewart cannot risk saying the truth; he cannot even risk seeing it at all. It simply does not exist. It never existed.

So he put friendship [for one minute] above mockery. Why is that a bad thing, again? Don't Republicans stand up for their friends on occasion? And note if you actually watched the show he simply said the whole thing had become sad - he still flashed the photos and mocked.

You are saying that Stewart is biased. And what about you? Are you too not all biased? Isn't everybody?

And btw don't you all put politics above sexual acts and still vote for the Ensigns, Vitters, Craigs of the world? Just like Democrats voted for Clinton et al.

This is a site where Rush Limbaugh is considered unbiased and someone who speaks only the truth. So if that is the standard then you can hardly criticize Stewart. Think about it. Once politics enters the conversation everyone is biased.

This is a site where Rush Limbaugh is considered unbiased and someone who speaks only the truth.

A ridiculous statement. If you really want to hang your hat on that sentiment, you're as good as saying, "ignore me for I have nothing of value to add". You're also arguing in bad faith because you can't possibly believe that's true of "this site".

Pay attention, Matt. It's not about sex. It's about lying. It's about trust. It's about character.

Driving last night, I heard a radio host make that same point to a caller. "It's not about sex. It's about character. We can't trust this guy." And the caller insisted (as I'm sure Matt will, too): "No, these people say that; but inside, you know it's really all about the sex with them." And the host repeated: "It's not about sex."

Imagine my surprise when I found out the host was Ed Schultz. Ed Schultz! Ed Schultz gets it! But Matt, you still don't get it.

Stewart is a tad more thoughtful and objective than Letterman and Maher, but it takes a delicate, precision instrument to measure the differences. I don't think the Weiner scandal is the most sordid, but it is clearly the most ridiculous to ever befall an American politician. Stewart takes an above the fray posture, mocking what fools these mortals be. If the Weiner scandal is not funny, than nothing in American life is funny. If you don't mock Weiner, you are not entitled to mock Palin. Worse, Stewart has, in a subliminal way, been supportive of Weiner. For exammple, he commented on how jealous he was of Weiner's generous endowments and ripped muscles. Is there anyone else in America who had a similar response to those photos? I can understand his wish not to betray a friend, but Stewart, himself, has become part of the Weiner farce.

I watch Jon Stewart ever night, and Colbert often. Stewart - unlike Limbaugh - does poke the left and right. He has taken Obama to task and was made fun of both Fox and MSNBC. But most of all, his interviews are the best and most probing on TV. He doesn't accept BS, and he does follow-up. Something missing on most networks.

FenI'm not even sure what you are talking about? As usual you are in your own head....

Anyway Stewart is biased. Limbaugh is biased. That is the point. I see people on here say 'Stewart sucks!' and I have to ask why exactly does he suck? And the only logical conclusion is because he is a liberal who goes after conservatives. He makes them look absurd and he mocks them. Limbaugh does the same. Does he suck? Sure if you are a liberal who hates his particular kind of truth.

Stewart isn't funny most of the time. The reason? It's not because I'm partisan. It's because for comedy to be funny, it has to contain truth. There's very little truth in Stewart's material.

For instance, Palin never said, "I can see Russia from my house." So any "joke" which refers to that as part of the punchline isn't based on truth; instead, it's based on a distortion of what the comedian would like the audience to believe is true.

There's so much leftist comedians omit when they're joking about one of their own. For crying out loud, they couldn't bring themselves to make even the mildest jokes about their black Jesus for MONTHS after his coronation. Even though he was committing acts of comedy gold on a daily basis. (Walking into a window instead of a french door at the WH -- not once, but TWICE; thinking Austrians speak Austrian; thinking there's 57 states; thinking an appropriate gift to the Queen of England is a iPod filled with his speeches... I could go on and on.) The point is, if ANYONE else had done these things, leftist comedians wouldn't be punting. But it's Obama, the black Messiah, so they don't DARE say anything to disparage him. Why not? Oh, they don't want to be called raaaaaacists!

To be frank, any comedian who can't make fun of Obama for the dumb things he does is a freaking coward. Stewart has more balls than most of the lot, but even he doesn't have much.

Word verification: sinater. At some point, Anthony Weiner would like to leave congress to become a Sinater.

I don't think this is a fair assessment. Stewart dedicated an entire week to comedic coverage of the Weiner scandal and he didn't pull any punches. Even the article you linked to described it as "pitch perfect".

Monday night's coverage was brief because Weiner's press conference was late in the day and an hour or so before the The Daily Show is filmed so there wasn't enough time to write a full segment. Also, kicking your admitted long-time friend while he was down after a tearful confession would have been somewhat low.

As a result the press and conservative blogs jumped all over him for it. Even though he followed up with a hilarious segment the following night and has given this scandal more coverage than past Republican sex scandals, even the ones that actually involved illegality.

Based on my own observations of Stewart's conduct behind his desk, I see a man with all the aspirations of an Anthony Weiner, but too cowardly for the direct and breathtaking audacity it takes to dwell in such rarefied amorality.

What should be held against him is the very fact that Stewart considers someone like Weiner a friend in the fist place. Anyone who's knows the history of how Weiner first got elected to congress and/or has observed how he's conducted himself in thejob knows what an utter twerp of man and toad of a human being he is.

Anthony Weiner is one of a cabal of far-left, radical Brooklynites who spew bile and invective at their opponents on a daily basis and have made the politics of personal destruction their stock and trade.

If you count someone as repugnant as Anthony Weiner as your friend it speak volumes about your own lack of character.

I think everyone can agree that we're all biased to our friends. I think we can all say that we have, or have had, friends that have made some regrettable and/or questionable decisions in the past. I think that's the case with Stewart and Weiner. How many of us have unabatedly bashed those friends when they made mistakes? How many of us have distanced ourselves from our friends after said mistake? Does it say more, or less, about Stewart's character, to say he stuck by a friend that made a foolish mistake. Would this even be an issue if Weiner were a construction worker and Stewart was an accountant? No. But they lead high profile lives and they subject themselves to public scrutiny, like all politicians and celebrities.

As for qualifications, alst time I check neither Stewart, Colbert, Rush or Glenn Beck were journalists. They're all entertainers, not journalists. Beck and Limbaugh were Top 40 radio DJ for a long time before they became politcal commentators, just like Colbert and Stewart were and are comedians. Besides, I don't remember the last time a real journalist put on a Christmas play.

Do some people take the aforementioned seriously? Yes. I know alot of people that are intelligent and they have menial labor jobs, does that mean that I take them less seriously? I think everyone needs to get a grip on this situation.

Yet another person who obviously never watches the show. Not only has Stewart made fun of Weiner non-stop for a week, he also constantly rips other Democrats with the same vigor and humor that he does Republicans. If you bothered watching, you'd know that.

So you didn't find Jon Stewart to be funny. Oh noes! I'm sure he's in real trouble now. Some humorless blogger didn't find him funny, probably for ideological reasons. Seriously, you critiquing Jon Stewart on comedy is kinda like him critiquing you on the law, except you aren't a giant in the field. You should probably stick to what you are good at and let Jon Stewart stick to what he is good at. He is influential because he is a comedy genius. Anyone that doesn't think so is likely lacking in humor.

Good lord.....what a bunch of hyper-citical, humorless, right wing fools. Guess the Repubs don't feel the same loyalty to a friend, right or wrong. Guess throwing them under the bus is good for the soul: you guys do it all the time.Besides, the right wing certainly has NO SEXcapades on their side at all.....nada....none....never. (Vitter, Ensign, Spitzer, to name a few).

Guess you all should just go back to watching Sean, Megan, Glenn, Juan, and the bunch. They are certainly right up your alley. Unintelligent and humorless........

Missed the point.Whenever one of these dumb sex scandals is in the headlines TDS's joke is look at all the really important things that are happening (the economy, the wars, the devastating weather) but what gets the most airtime? The Twitter Wiener.How much airtime has FOX or CNN or MSNBC given to the US bombing Yemen compared to Senator Weiner? Which is more important?

but Stewart isn't Weiners friend in the same way he is (or was) friends with McCain, or even the way he is friends with Colbert. They aren't political friends or work friends.

He's been friends with Anthony Weiner since they were small children. They are less friends and more extended family. So knowing your friend from grade school (through high school and college) is being inappropriate with girls probably didn't shock him that much (would it shock you if one of your high school buddies did something dumb?).

There are things more important than politics, and long after Weiner is done with office and Stewart is done with TV they will still be friends. Thank god some family values survive.

apparently no one here actually watches The Daily Show. So far i have seen 2 episodes where Stewart did great segments on Weiner and i don't watch that often. You should know something about what you are writing about before you actually write about it.